Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Category:Computer and video game industry and press[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game industry and press into Category:Computer and video game journalism

Merge, The category is overly broad, Category:CVG industry and Category:CVG journalism better fit the contents. I have marked this as merge into journalism as this category is mostly about the gaming press. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Much improved. --lquilter 17:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, plus the original category is awfully long.--Wizardman 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North Dakota Fighting Sioux and Clarkson Golden Knights hockey players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North Dakota Fighting Sioux hockey players to Category:North Dakota Fighting Sioux ice hockey players

Propose renaming Category:Clarkson Golden Knights players to Category:Clarkson Golden Knights ice hockey players

Rename, to fit the format of the other categories in Category:College ice hockey players. Skudrafan1 23:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Skudrafan1...although I do dread the thought of having to recategorize 40 some (Fighting Sioux) articles...oh well! --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Don't worry about recategorizing the articles, there is a bot that automatically handles this once the decision is finalized. Resolute 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great news. I haven't been involved with too many cat renamings and I didn't realize that. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. DMighton 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since no reason is given for the rename. Are there field hockey teams by the same names? If not, then there is no need to rename them. − Twas Now 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the reason is that every other subcategory of Category:College ice hockey players has the phrase ice hockey in it, not just hockey. I did give that reason above. Skudrafan1 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to fit apparent standard of other cats of same nature. --Djsasso 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cape Verde by city[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cities in Cape Verde, convention of Category:Cities by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: sorry, but articles in the city-cats are not all cities (see Category:Mindelo) so you cant sort them under the Category:Cities in Cape Verde - so i've created the Category:Cape Verde by city and sorted it under Category:Cape Verde to correct this mistake - Sven-steffen arndt 23:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and remove inappropriate articles. Pinoakcourt 14:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all contained articles in the city-cat refer to the city, so they are correct there - only the classification under the "cities in ..."-cats make problems, to example with catscan - Sven-steffen arndt 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Wimstead 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kitesurfing locations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is supposed to be for "notable" kitesurfing locations. I fail to see how that will be determined without original research. Donald Albury 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anywhere with wind, water, and not too many rocks in the shallows (there must be a proper nautical term for those) is a potential kitesurfing location. And defining "notable" in regards to sporting locations is, as Donald said, original research. Picaroon 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your generalisation about potential kitesurfing locations is not accurate or relevant. Good kitesurfing locations typically have consistent strong winds (e.g. trade winds and/or sea breezes) blowing side onshore, good launching sites (such as a wide beach) and water for good runs (some reefs are OK if they are easily avoided). The category is for notable kitesurfing locations, where references are available and can be incorporated into articles - although commercial links to kitesurfing schools are obviously not too desirable. Peter Campbell 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective. Also, it's a bad idea to start categorizing locations by what tourist there might like to do. Imagine how many categories there would be for Las Vegas if we started creating things like "Gambling locales", "Sightseeing locales", "Notable stage musical locations", "Desert related tourist locales", etc. Dugwiki 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the related list article Kitesurfing locations. I could have sworn the article was up for afd recently, but I don't see it in the history so I'm not sure. Either way, it would probably suffer from the same problems. Dugwiki 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I created this category to match Category:Windsurfing locations. The locations were added into the Kitesurfing article by various editors and represent information of interest to any kitesurfer (or windsurfer for that matter. References / citations can be added to the article. Why delete a category that provides useful information that can be referenced? The article on locations was recently split out of the parent article. Peter Campbell 06:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The existence of a similar category is no justification for this category. As Dugwiki suggest, Category:Windsufing locations may be nominated for deletion as well. I think it would be better to have List of kitesurfing locations, adding only locations that are supported by reliable published sources. -- Donald Albury 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I suggested splitting the list out of the main article for readability, not notability. As far as notability of the locations, there are several Kitesurfing specific magazines that frequently feature notable kitesurfing areas, so this is not original research. If there is sufficient local interest to support one or more commercial enterprises related to kitesurfing in that area, their existence is sufficient to confirm notability, and it is easy to verify this as well. So the subjectivity is not really an issue. If there is a dispute on notability, it is easy to resolve. Dhaluza 15:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not so easy to determine if the articles in a category all meet the criteria for the category. I suggest you move this stuff to a separate list, as I discussed above in response to Peter Campbell. -- Donald Albury 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The information is on Kitesurfing locations (a list, possibly needing renaming as List of....). The category is complementary to the list (as with many other Wikipedia cats/lists). Please explain why the criteria is not so easy to define compared to similar categories. Dhaluza 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cities and other locations in general should not be grouped according to the potential leisure activities that could be pursued in the locations. Usually, a range of activites can be pursued within such locations; listing all the potential leisure activites in a list would be difficult. Moreover, the identification of locations that are good for kitesurfing appears to be subjective. Potentially, any location near a body of water could be included in such a list. Dr. Submillimeter 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As per my response above to Picaroon's similar comment to yours - good (notable) kitesurfing locations typically have consistent strong winds (e.g. trade winds and/or sea breezes) blowing side onshore, good launching sites (such as a wide beach) and water for good runs (some reefs are OK if they are easily avoided). The category is for notable kitesurfing locations (as listed in the article), where references/citations are available and can be incorporated into articles - although commercial links to kitesurfing schools are obviously not too desirable. This is knowledge, important to some, that can be referenced and verified. I don't think a compelling case for deletion has been made. It is not original research. Hypothetical discussion above about "other similar categories that may be created in the future" is not relevant. Peter Campbell 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This only addresses my concerns on the subjective criteria, and I am unpersuaded that "good launching sites" and "water for good runs" can be determined objectively (as they contain the subjective qualifier "good"). The other half of my concern is organizing locations based on leisure activities, which seems impractical. Kailua Beach may be a good example; the location is a kitesurfing location, swimming location, kayaking location, sunbathing location, kite-flying location, barbequeing location, etc. Dr. Submillimeter 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kailua Beach is a great example of where this category can provide useful information. It is a notable kite/windsurfing location - with information and a citation about this in the article. If the article has this category, it is easy to find this out. Without the category, it is considerably more difficult. The other alternative is to just keep adding locations to the Kitesurfing locations article, but the category supplements this article. Someone reading an article about a place interested in kitesurfing can access considerably more information about other places via the category. I think this is valuable. Peter Campbell 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This response simply failed to address my comments on the subjective inclusion criteria issues or the problems with organizing places by leisure activity. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also nominated Category:Windsurfing locations for deletion, as it appears to suffer the same problems as this category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English laws[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English laws to Category:to be determined by consensus

No vote, a recent proposed merge into Category:English law was rejected but there was a strong feeling that the singular/plural distinction between the categories is not enough to make their separate purposes clear at a glance ("laws" is for actual enactments; "law" is for articles about the law) and a better name has been requested. Timrollpickering 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be improper naming syntax to use Category:Enacted English laws and Category:English law or use the dab strategy or Category:English law (enactments) Category:English law (topic) TonyTheTiger 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The previous discussion was a strong keep, and only a small minority had concerns about the current name. Chicheley 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant cat tree is Category:Statutory law and that cat includes (1) Category:English laws (as well as British, North Irish, Welsh, etc. -- a bit of redundant categorization); (2) it also includes national categories "Fooish legislation" (which would include both passed and proposed, I presume); and (3) it also includes various subject-specific "Foosubject laws" and "Foosubject legislation".
I note that none of these categories are hugely overpopulated so they could be standardized now. "X legislation" includes both enacted statutes and proposed statutes; "X laws" includes as a subset enacted statutes, and also laws passed by other means -- self-executing treaties that didn't have to be passed as domestic legislation; and Constitutional-level laws (although in the US we don't ordinarily think of the Constitution as "laws" but as one of several sources of "law"). --lquilter 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you seem to suggest that English/Scottish law are over-categorisation? You possibly aren't aware, but there is actually no such thing as 'British law'. The UK has three seperate legal systems - England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Although substantially similar, there are historical differences in the substance of law, principally in the area of private law, but also in criminal law. Of course, there are certain areas which are legislated on, and judged on, a UK-wide basis.

Additionally, it's perhaps worth noting that there is no formal recognition of a seperate class of 'Constitutional' laws in the UK (whether England and Wales, Scotland, etc). As I noted below, I think this whole category needs to be looked at.

Xdamr^talk 14:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is one of the (few) things I did know about the Brit/Eng/etc system of laws, but I wasn't thinking of that -- I was just thinking of the typical classification of things British/English/Welsh/etc, which use British as a container for Sc/En/We/NI ... but I think you're right that that classification scheme would be wrong in the case of laws; because the cats would (falsely) imply subunits. --lquilter 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & comments The difference between 'law' and 'laws' in a category name is so insignificant (relatively speaking) and apt to be overlooked as to be of little use. That is reason enough for revisiting the previous debate—such obvious scope for confusion is clearly a bad thing.

As a sometime law graduate, this distinction between English law and English laws is not one which is conventionally seen. The two principal sources of law in the UK are judge-made precedent and statutory enactments (ie Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instruments, etc). Legal concepts (ie laws, in their broadest sense) may be formed by an Act, a judgement of the Courts, or an amalgam of the two. Therefore 'English laws' are not the same thing as 'English legislation'—the distinction which the present categorisation seems to want to make.

Having taken a look through the categories as a whole (including sub-categories) I think that this whole structure needs to be revised. ~~However I think that a useful start would be made if we were to rename Category:English laws to Category:English statutes.~~

The recent debate certainly seemed to provide a conclusive result, however I fail to see that any compelling line of reasoning was provided in favour of keeping the current set-up. It looks very much like this present structure is the creation of a non-expert (not intending to disparage their efforts, of course). That being the case I really think that we ought to base this on the actual distinctions made by English law itself. 'Law' vs 'laws' is not one of them.

Xdamr^talk 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd also be inclined to suggest that Category:English law is renamed Category:Law of England.

Xdamr^talk 14:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xdamr -- what do you think about Magna Carta? It's not common law; it seems superior to statutary law; but it's not constitutional law. Where would it fit? And there must be other such ... enactments? ... in "British" legal history? --lquilter 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Royal charter, so I think that it would be broadly regarded as legislation. It's not really superior to statute law (at least not in England), in the 1960s most of it was repealed. In modern-day judicial process, the Magna Carta doesn't really come up. Most of it is now inapplicable and when people look to preserve their 'fundamental rights' they tend to look to the ECHR.

Xdamr^talk 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a larger category structure in which English laws, Scottish laws, etc. are a subcategory of British laws. I do not think we can consider English laws in isolation. Kurando | ^_^ 14:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look through Category:Statutory law. For completeness, in deriving a list of legislation by UK legislative body, this is what we need:

Wales

Acts of the Welsh Assembly (presently Category:Welsh laws)

Scotland

Acts of the Scottish Parliament (presently contained within Catgory:Scottish laws)
Acts of the Parliament of Scotland (presently contained within Catgory:Scottish laws)

Northern Ireland

Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland
Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly

England

Acts of the Parliament of England (presently contained within [[[:Category:English laws]])

UK

Category:Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain (presently contained within Category:British laws)
Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (Category:Lists of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament)

NI/Scottish/English/Welsh legislation is only applicable to the appropriate nation, however Acts of the UK Parliament can be applicable to either/all. ~~Therefore it is probably advisable to have a category of legislation by applicability.~~

Xdamr^talk 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a supercategory of ... ? Category:Legislation in the United Kingdom? (to fit within Category:Statutory law and Category:United Kingdom law ??? --lquilter 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go away and ponder this question... --Xdamr^talk 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to clarify Xdamr's statement that "Acts of the UK Parliament is applicable to either/all". For example the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 applied only to Scotland. Any Act of the Westminster Parliament with the bracketed element - (Northern Ireland), (Scotland) or (Wales) - is applicable to that constituent country; and, very confusingly, unbracketed Acts may be applicable to England-only, England & Wales, Eng/Wal & NI, the whole UK, or any combination thereof!!! --Mais oui! 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal I've been off for the past few days pondering this issue, trying to develop a categorisation system which would encompass, legislation, case law, legal principles, the broader legal system, specific areas of law, etc, etc. I've had one or two interesting ideas, but the great over-arching structure has eluded me. I'll probably raise this with WP:LAW and see if they are interested in evolving a useful structure.

Having said this, the fundamental point of this nomination was to distinguish English law, the category for the broader legal system, from English laws, the category for legislation. However, as Kurando correctly pointed out, this category cannot be considered in isolation. English law is not an isolated entity, it it thoroughly bound up with the other UK legal systems. Therefore it is necessary to also consider these categories, to develop a categorisation system which can handle both their similarities and shared characteristics as well as their differences.

I have noted above the individual national legislative bodies of the UK. Some have a UK-wide reach, others are confined to their respective nations. Given that there is this degree of commonality, I think that an over-arching UK-wide category within Category:Law by country is merited. Within this category, Category:United Kingdom law, we have categories for Scots, English, NI, etc law. This structure broadly exists at present, with one or two anomalies.

Getting to the matter of legislation, there are two approaches: Classification by applicability, or classification by origin. I favour the latter. This would give us the following category tree:

Category:Law by country

|___ Category:United Kingdom law

. . . |

. . . |___ Category:Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain

. . . |___ Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

. . . . . . |___ ...etc...

. . . |___ Category:English law

. . . | . . |

. . . | . . |___ Category:Acts of the Parliament of England

. . . |

. . . |___ Category:Northern Ireland law

. . . | . . |

. . . | . . |___ Category:Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland

. . . | . . |___ Category:Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly

. . . |

. . . |___ Category:Scots law

. . . | . . |

. . . | . . |___ Category:Acts of the Parliament of Scotland

. . . | . . |___ Category:Acts of the Scottish Parliament

. . . |

. . . |___ Category:Welsh law

. . . . . . |

. . . . . . |___ Category:Acts of the Welsh Assembly

(Perhaps the UK-wide Category:Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain and Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom could also be added to each of the national categories?)

The legislation contained within Category:English laws would therefore be spread between Category:Acts of the Parliament of England, Category:Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, and Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In consequence, there would be no need for Category:English laws, which could be deleted.

Xdamr^talk 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Important publication in mathematics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Mathematics publications. the wub "?!" 12:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Important publication in mathematics to Category:Important publications in mathematics

Request I now see that Category:Important publication and all its subcats should be added to this nomination. Would someone mind amending the nom for me? I really have to go now. --Trovatore 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, Categories of this sort -- that is, where each article in the category should be about an example of what the category name describes -- take plural names. Trovatore 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mathematics publications. "Important" is impermissibly POV for a category. "Important" by what standards? If a maths pub is notable enough for an article it is by Wikipedia standards "important." Otto4711 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Comment Rename to plural as requested. As Otto points out, under normal circumstances words like "important" are pretty much meaningless. All articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be about notable subjects, so if a publication has an article it is, hopefully, important in some regard. That being said, it appears that Category:Important publication is intended as an internal organizational tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. It has no parent category and looks to be more for the project's internal use than general readership. If the scope of the category is limited to that internal use, that it's probably ok, but if it's intended for general readership these categories should be deleted as being redundant with other similar categories on Wiki. Dugwiki 21:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename subcategories to Category:Mathematics publications etc and delete Category:Important publication. "Important" is an unacceptable term in category names. WikiProjects can note their priorities in lists in their own space. Chicheley 22:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Otto, Chicheley, etc. Xiner (talk, email) 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are already a lot of categories in various academic fields called Category:Fooish literature which subdivide into journals, books, and so on. I somewhat prefer publications to literature, myself, because it picks up software, films, and so on, but please be aware of the existing categorization practice. --lquilter 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters who had their etnicities changed in movie adaptation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Only two characters here, and although I'm not exactly an expert on the field, I don't see how there can be much more. That, and I don't believe its all that relevant. CyberGhostface 19:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference --Cat out 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over-cat per nom. Note the ethnicity change in the relevant character or film article. Otto4711 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I don't think the "Intersection by ethnicity" guideline applies here. That guideline is intended to avoid categorizing people by ethnicity when their ethnicity is essentially a non-notable matter. However, in some cases, a person's ethnicity is notable or even central to discussion of that person. In this particular case, you might have for example two version of a story where the ethnicity of the person plays an important role. A hypothetical example would be if someone rewrote To Kill A Mockingbird changing the ethnicities of the characters. Another similar real life example might be Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and the 2005 remake Guess Who (film), both of which explored racial tensions but with the ethnicities and roles reversed.
Such examples would be pretty rare, though, and this type of sorting isn't worthwhile if the ethnicity change has no substantial impact.Dugwiki 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is intended for "real" people but the rationale behind it still applies. --Cat out 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I wasn't saying it's "real vs fictional". I was saying that the guideline makes an exception when the ethnicity of the person is actually significant to the topic being discussed. It's possible that in some of the articles the ethnicity actually does matter, which is why the guideline you mentioned wouldn't necessarilly be a reason to delete. (The category might need to be deleted for other reasons, but "intersection of ethnicity" isn't necessarilly one of them.) Dugwiki 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Many things are changed in movie adaptations. -choster 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category title is lengthy, and this really does not seem like a way to organize fictional characters effectively. Dr. Submillimeter 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overcategorization and a bad idea to boot - this is characters by performance, even worse than actors by performance. (It's a fine list - gender/race-neutral / gender/race-blind casting is a topic of interest.) --lquilter 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I agree. This is probably a better topic for an article specifically dealing with how racial changes alter remakes of movies and stories. It would be an interesting topic, and the list should be small enough to be included in that hypothetical article. Dugwiki 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also misspelled, and missing Harvey Dent.--Mike Selinker 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference that is not as easy to classify as one might think anyway. In many cases, no race was mentioned in the original source. It was just assumed. Doczilla 07:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jews and Judaism by city[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion. Categorization with sub cats goes as far as streets. We do NOT want religion by city/street/shop categories. I do not see the relevance of Carnegie Deli to jews (so much that its categorized). This nomination is for this category and all relevant subcats. Cat out 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good categories. New York and Jerusalem have hardly been chosen at random. Chicheley 22:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggest we include every city in Israel and every city jews happen to live? How about Category:Atheists by city or Category:Peanutbutter worshippers by city? --Cat out 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That last is a tad silly. However I'm also not sure I see the point in this case. We don't really do ethnicities or religions by city so far as I know. Category:Christian communities includes towns, but it's predominately about intentional religious communities.--T. Anthony 04:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe categorizing entire cities/hamlets/towns/villages by a religion is not useful. A list may be better and more sensible provided the list does not include every "Christian dominant city" (thats practically almost all of Europe among other continents right?). The best approach may be a map. What ever the preferred method is, I think categorizing cities, shops, and etc by religion is a classy for over categorization. --Cat out 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is better to have these than to dump all the articles in the parent categories. Pinoakcourt 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the catgories, but rename as Category:Judaism by city It seems reasonable to have categories about significant Jewish communities in cities that have them. I don't think we should start categorizing Jewish people by the city they live in. This would be an overcategorization. I don't see people in these categories, so it seems that just the category name is the problem. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think religion by city is smart. Earth has way too many cities, towns, hamlets and etc. "significant Jewish communities" is an arbitrary inclusion criteria and also rises the question what do we consider "significant". --Cat out 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without amendment "Jews and Judaism" is a good term reflecting the complexities of the issue. There are articles only appropriate to the "Jews" part of the name that aren't about individuals, eg those about secular organizations of Jews. Wimstead 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So there are plenty of Jews in Jerusalem... Why is it so hard to mention this in the article without the category? --Cat out 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeep as per above. Thunderhead1 03:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jews and Judaism by country[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under WP:OC: Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Arbitrary inclusion criterion. Most of the subcats are underpopulated and not necesarily relevant to jews or judaism. "Religion by Country" isn't overpopulated to require a jewish subcat. Its also badly structured, see: Category:Crusades (how it is a subcat) for what I mean. This nomination is for this category and all relevant subcats. Cat out 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I just do not see the point of these categories. It is a fact that Jews do live all parts of the world. Categorizing individual Deli restaurants (as it is on Category:Jews and Judaism by city) is unhelpful. The linked articles under these categories are not necessarily relevant to Jews in general. Some categories only have a handful linked articles (often just one) with no potential of growth. --Cat out 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition #2: People seem to be confused by the intention here we do have a seperate Category:Judaism by country category. A Category:Islam and Arabs by country would be senseless with Category:Islam by country. I know it is a poor comparasion since what the term "Jew" references can be controversial. --Cat out 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly good categories grouping related material that would otherwise be harder to find. Chicheley 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks perfectly reasonable to me. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the overcategorization article maybe needs looked at as we seem to be getting people that are reading too much into it. The section the nominator links to talks of arbitrary or unrecognized intersections. For example a Category:Jews and Judaism in Wal-Mart would be next to meaningless. However Category:Jews and Judaism in Yemen seems relevant as there is the article Yemenite Jews. Furthermore we have Category:Anglicans by nationality, Category:Islam by country, Category:Hinduism by country, Category:Sikhism by country, Category:Jainism by country, Category:Buddhism by country, Category:Taoism by country, etc. (Sorry if this was too long)--T. Anthony 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a Category:Judaism by country category. Why need this duplicate? An Category:Islam and Arabs by country would be just as meaningless... --Cat out 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm I didn't think of that. Still we have Category:Christians by nationality and Category:Christianity by country. They're not precisely the same thing. I don't see a problem with this either.--T. Anthony 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not see the difference between what "Jews and Judaism by country" and "Judaism by country" supposed to cover. --Cat out 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Judaism" concerns the religion; without the addition of "Jews" articles about secular Jewish issues and organizations could not be included. There are many differences between this and Category:Islam and Arabs by country is that Jews are a minority in all countries but one; not all Arabs are Muslims, and only a small minority of Muslims are Arabs; for Arab countries the main national categories mainly about things related to Islam and/or Arabs, while for other countries the two fields are often little related, eg Islam in Bangladesh has little to do with specifically Arab issues, things or people other than the Koran. Wimstead 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The approach is still flawed two separate categories should be used then, one Category:Jewish people (ethnicity) and another existing Category:Judaism by country (religion). If the article in question is relevant to both the ethnicity and religion it could be tagged together. Having a religion-race category is over categorization. Jews being a minority or not doesn't concern our categorization schemes. --Cat out 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Cool Cat: Jews and Judaism are not equivalent subjects, yet at the same time they cannot be separated either. Indeed the parent category here of Category:Jews and Judaism has been performing superbly for many years since its inception in June 2004 [1] and similarly having as its sub-category Category:Jews and Judaism by country since June 2006 [2] has served as valuable resource on Wikipedia (for people not familiar with these issues or for those seeking a centralized location for these subjects) in bringing together scattered categories and articles about both Jews as a people and their religion of Judaism over long periods of time scaterred over dozens of key countries. All these categories have been carefully created, with more thought than you give credence to, and are growing steadily. You seem to forget that the Jews and Judaism are a complex people and religion with small numbers spread out over many countries with long associated histories, and they cannot be brushed aside by the flip of a proverbial wrist. IZAK 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful categories. Pinoakcourt 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my answer above. Wimstead 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these good and useful categories. IZAK 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a difference between a Jew (many of whom are not practising) and their religion. --Dweller 10:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and...
+ Add as subcategories of Category:Ethnic groups by region -- Petri Krohn 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep C mon 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Programs produced by Thirteen/WNET New York[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Programs produced by Thirteen/WNET New York to Category:WNET shows

Rename. Anything that shortens the name is fine with me, it seems unnecessarily long (the proposed name follows the parent category Category:PBS network shows). "WNET" uniquely specifies the station, "Thirteen" and "New York" aren't necessary to narrow down the category. "produced by" also isn't necessary, and slightly incorrect, since the description says it contains all shows that are produced, co-produced, or presented by the station. Interiot 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is long, yes, but even New Yorkers may not recognize WNET at first glance. Naming on Wikipedia is by most common name, and this is as clear as daylight. Xiner (talk, email) 03:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But does the category name need to be complex just to add that information. The station is still WNET, right? Vegaswikian 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Programs produced by WNET which would match the only similar entry in Category:PBS network shows. Since the parent is for A list of shows broadcast by PBS this makes sense. Including shows only presented on the station would not appear to be in line with the purpose of the parent cat. Vegaswikian 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trademark Law[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy merge. ×Meegs 12:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trademark Law into Category:Trademark law

Merge, same content could go in both, it's just a difference in capitalization. RedRollerskate 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Nathanian 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge --lquilter 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English people by county[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all to People from Foo. the wub "?!" 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A modest proposal ...

Currently all of these subcats are Natives of Foo. I don't really see any pressing need to distinguish between natives and residents, but I would strongly argue against making nativity the primary method of categorization. The problem is that there are always notable residents who where born elsewhere. My favorite example is the current Governer of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is certainly not native-born.

Another problem with making nativity the first level subcat is that it seems to suggest that those who chose to live in Foo are somehow less important than those who just happened to be born there. If anything, the reverse is true.

My suggestion is that for all of these counties, there should be first level subcats of the form People from Foo. This format intentionally includes both natives and residents. I have no objection to keeping the Natives of Foo categories, they seem to be important to some people. However, if we keep them then Natives of Foo should just become subcats of People from Foo.

What are people's opinions on this? -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussions of December 18th and January 8th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to "People from". A global renaming to something like "People strongly associated with" would remove all ambiguities, but it might be too much work to get that done at this late stage. Nathanian 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a problem in the same way people are saying Natives of Limburg should be moved to People of Limburg - if people move around they will end uo in lots of diffrent categories? ? Ulysses Zagreb 09:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "People from" per wider convention. Pinoakcourt 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being a "native" of somewhere is a verifiable fact, as per WP:CITE. But being "from" somewhere is a matter of opinion, breaching WP:NPOV. --Mais oui! 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the critiria and use of native. I hardly see how residence could not end in overcategorization. For example do we have to list every residence Mr. Schwarzenegger has held rather than his birth place? User:Dimadick
Rename all to "People from". These categories are misused to categorize people by counties with which they have no connection other than that their mother chanced to be staying there on the day they were born. "People from" actually provides better opportunities to identify the really important connections. Wimstead 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and others. ReeseM 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Long term residence is arguably more significant than birth. Postlebury 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:People from.... Numerous categories of this type have been nominated over the last year and people have widely varying perceptions of the nature of the restrictions that each term imposes. Thus the restrictions that some users would (possibly sensibly) like to see imposed on who is put into which place categories don't get acted on whichever choice is made. Given that background, we may as well be at least presentationally consistent. Sumahoy 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Famous Fenerbahçe S.K. fans[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't classify people like this. What's next? Category:Famous people who like Camembert cheese? bogdan 15:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition accepted, with fire and a tip of the hat for the comedy. - Francis Tyers · 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we prefer not to do People by opinion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whatever next? The Rambling Man 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial. Nathanian 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a title in line with Category:People associated with Swansea University. Tells a lot on the person in question. Cretanforever 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Natives of Limburg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People from Limburg (Netherlands). — CharlotteWebb 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of Limburg to Category:Natives of Limburg (Netherlands)

Rename, I created this but I realize this could be confused with the other Limburg in Belgium Ulysses Zagreb 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ~ Bigr Tex 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought the form here was Category:People from Limburg, Netherlands? Vegaswikian 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the form here was based on the main article, in this case Limburg (Netherlands). ~ Bigr Tex 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly pointing to the 'people from' rather then 'natives'. Most of these cats have used the comma convention for the place. However your point is does the local place naming convention apply here. A valid point. So I guess it should be either Category:People from Limburg, Netherlands or Category:People from Limburg (Netherlands). Vegaswikian 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vegaswikian - Limburg is a provience not a city. All the Dutch provinces are set out as Natives of North Holland, Friesland et cetera. The city are set out as People from Asmterdam, Rotterdam et cetera. If it is exapnded to people from Limburg wouldn't that big it a lot larger, as people move around someone could have to be in lots of different categories? Ulysses Zagreb 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Limburg (Netherlands) per discussion. ~ Bigr Tex 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renameper Vegaswikian. User:Dimadick
Rename to Category:People from Limburg (Netherlands) per discussion. Wimstead 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Limburg (Netherlands) per discussion. ReeseM 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judea and Samaria District[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Judea and Samaria District to Category:Judea and Samaria Area

Rename, as this is the official name. Tewfik^Talk 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but note that there are POV issues in making this a sub-category of Category:Districts of Israel. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Category:West Bank" covers the same area under a different name. They seem to overlap. User:Dimadick
  - Reply I agree that the categories are similar, but they are not the same. The West Bank refers to a geographic area. Judea and Samaria Area is an Israeli government subdivision, which only covers Israeli area (not PA-controlled ones) in the region. Also the West Bank is generally thought to cover East Jerusalem, while JS Area does not. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Follow the facts on the ground and avoid POV. --Dweller 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The Return of Books by author[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all and commend Her Pegship for taking on the nomination. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per recent discussion of Books by So & So. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and thank you. It is a lot of work to put together a big nomination like this... -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and another big thank you. Sleep well and wiki well. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Ulysses Zagreb 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - renaming is obviously a good thing. However, "Science fiction novels by Iain M. Banks" should be just "Novels by Iain M. Banks"; "Iain M. Banks" only writes sf, as opposed to "Iain Banks". — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Revised accordingly - Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Short stories & collections[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency with other literature cats, per Books by So & So convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have to go to bed now...I got as far as tagging Category:Nikolai Gogol short stories. I can finish it tomorrow, unless someone else wants to take it on...zzz...Her Pegship (tis herself) 06:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistancy is good. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Another problem "Pegged"! Good on you :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency Ulysses Zagreb 10:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No objection as the creator of one of the category pages nominated. 23skidoo 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Apple category[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to match article i.e. "Apple Inc." the wub "?!" 12:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename company name changing and WP:NC-CORP Nyhuj 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Also note previous switch from Apple n to Apple Computer n at CfD 2006/Nov/14.-choster 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:NC-CORP (cited by the proponent) says "The legal status of the company (Inc., plc or LLC), is not normally included". Bluap 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about renaming all to Apple * then? Xiner (talk, email) 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Apple Inc. the article moved from Apple Computer to Apple Inc. on 9-Jan. It makes sense not to include the legal status of the company if it is not part of the legal name of the company. ~ Bigr Tex 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Apple Inc.. "The legal status of the company... is not normally included" (emphasis mine); here it is necessary for disambiguation. -choster 15:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per choster, essential to avoid ambiguity. The Rambling Man 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Almost without exception the name of the category should match the name of the associated main article. In this case, the main article is Apple Inc. so categories should match that. Dugwiki 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming Category:Games on Apple platforms, that is fine the way it is. I'm not sure about the rest yet. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Company name changed so the cats must. And yes, I'd go with Apple Inc. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and above. Use "Apple Inc.", per the article and the copyright notice on Apple.com. Is there a bot who can fix all the category names in the articles?--Here T oHelp 14:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME ALL, barring Category:Games on Apple platforms per CyberSkull. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Failed Apple Computer initiatives. Who defines what is "failed" anyway? Should there be a "failed" category for every company with a wikipedia entry? Jason C.K. 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1996 NFL Draft WRs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. We don't need a category for every football position for every draft year. Only category of its kind. VegaDark 04:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial characteristic. Xiner (talk, email) 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in favor of deletion. However, the category was not properly parented. There should be either an 1996 NFL Draftee or NFL Wide Reciever category for these to be upmerged to. TonyTheTiger 21:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dave Kelly[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A category already exists for the Madhouse Records label, and this category duplicates that category. Not a sufficiently notable person to need his own category. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dave_Kelly_(producer) may be deleted, too. Xiner (talk, email) 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the information in this category is easily accessible from his main article. This category is entirely redundant with that. Dugwiki 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Port cities[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was reverse merge. the wub "?!" 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Port cities into Category:Seaports

Merge, Looks like a lot of duplication to me. I picked Seaports as the destinaion because it is two weeks older than Port Cities (both go back to April, 2005). Donald Albury 00:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should recategorize all articles on specific cities into category:port cities and leave all articles about specific seaports (facilitie for receiving ships) in category:seaports. Both categories can then be put to use, without any duplication. How does this sound? Picaroon 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge into Category:Port cities because, wrt to Picaroon's comment, the main category for port facilities is Category:Ports and harbours, which is already subcategorised. Hawkestone 04:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Not all ports are on the sea—far from it, for instance Chicago is one of the most important port cities in the U.S. If there's really a need to establish that St. Louis, Missouri is a river port city as opposed to Whyalla, South Australia being a seaport city, then keep both. We did a cleanup last year to put facilities under Category:Ports and harbours but perhaps some new miscats were introduced.-choster 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge It would be possible to create separate hierarchies for sea lake and river ports, but seaports are so much the most important that it is probably not quite worthwhile. Also keep a redirect. Nathanian 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge I agree that something separate should also be done for Category:Great Lakes cities or Category:Mississippi River cities. TonyTheTiger 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that 'Port cities' should be the higher/surviving cat. Another possibility would be for 'Seaports', 'Lakeports' and 'Riverports' to be subcats of 'Port cities'. -- Donald Albury 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to Category:Port cities and towns. Not all seaports are in cities. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and rename to Category:Port cities and towns Pinoakcourt 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per Picaroon, or else delete outright. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge particularly to cater for ports that are on rivers or estuaries, that may technically not be seaports. --Dweller 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.